Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:42, 2 February 2014

Template:ACIDnom

Business Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Science as not fitting rule 5 and 6

Plenty of national associations out there... many commonwealth nations have a Royal Society (not to mention THE Royal Society). America has the AAAS. All of these societies have codes of ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.168.16 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Scientist is quite a broad term. In the UK, the terms Chartered Environmentalist, Chartered Scientist and Chartered Biologist are legally protected and only granted to professionals. --EcoChap (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

Philosophy does not meet criteria 6-7, but it does meet 5. For example, in America, we have the American Philosophical Association. So I have changed the entry to reflect this fact.

Concerning criteria 6-7: Philosophy does (and probably always will) fail to meet criteria 7, but criteria 6 is a strange standard to apply to philosophy. Given that philosophy takes ethics as one of its topics of research, philosophy is uniquely unable to adopt a profession-wide standard of ethics. If the profession is inquiring into, disagreeing over, debating, and questioning ethics, the profession cannot have a profession-wide ethical standard. Which is to say, you can't have a profession-wide ethics for philosophy for the same reason you can't have a profession-wide theory of physics for science. Inquiry into, disagreement over, debate concerning wildly different theories of physics is one of the subjects of science and so science cannot have a theory of physics imposed upon it as a professional standard.

I am not saying criteria 6 is an incorrect criteria for professions, but this would seem to be a special case given the nature of this particular profession that it only makes sense to judge philosophy by criteria 1-5 and 7. Which is to say, that given the unique circumstances regarding philosophy, criteria 6 doesn't make sense as a criteria for judging whether or not philosophy is a profession. Criteria 6 must be "bracketed"/"ignored" here since philosophy uniquely cannot force a philosophical ethical theory on the field as a whole. Good general criteria often need to make exceptions for unique cases, and philosophy is one of them concerning criteria 6 given that ethics is a part of the subject matter of philosophy.

- Atfyfe (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried keeping it short, but in some way indicating that while philosophy fails to meet criteria 6-7, criteria 6 may be inappropriate to apply in this case. Here's the way I put it in the entry: "Philosophers (does not fulfill criteria 7, thus does not qualify as a profession as described above; also does not fulfill criteria 6, but 6 may be uniquely inapplicable in this case since ethics is a subject in philosophy)" - Atfyfe (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Doctors are not necessarily physicians

The link of Doctor should be corrected and pointed to http://en.wikipedia.org/Doctor_%28title%29 which is more appropriate than physician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.32.71 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Provincial color?

What the hell is this? I google and only get paint and wood stain colors. As a section it seems trivial and unnecessary. Maaaaaybe it would be worth keeping as a sentence in the History section. 98.116.253.94 (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. This 2010 edit was very odd and I have undone it. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Left out a "rule"?

Professionals are paid by the person or entity they work on behalf of. e.g. a doctor is paid by their patient, a lawyer by his client. If, in the case of "social work" the client is not the one doing the paying, problems like conflict of interest arise. Why is this 'payment by client' not in the list of rules?

• Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles